A. BADHARUDEEN
Kamalakshan, S/o. Late Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
Usha, D/o. Late Krishnan, W/o. Radhakrishnan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(A. Badharudeen, J.)
This regular first appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. In this appeal, the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 569 of 2010 on the files of Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda assails decree and judgment in the above case dated 31.03.2015 whereby the suit filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 was dismissed by the trial court.
3. Respondents in this appeal are the 1st defendant and the 2nd plaintiff.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the 1st plaintiff/appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/1st defendant in detail. Perused the pleadings, evidence, and the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the 1st defendant/1st respondent.
5. For effective and easy discussion, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as ‘plaintiffs’, ‘1st defendant’, and ‘2nd defendant’ hereafter.
6. The plaintiffs’ case in brief:-
Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who are the male children born to Mulangil Krishnan and Devaki - the 2nd defendant would assert right over the plaint schedule property on the strength of a settlement deed No. 2372/1972 of Mala S.R.O. executed by the parents. According to the plaintiffs
The stipulations in a settlement deed do not confer absolute rights to a transferee, rendering subsequent sale deeds void if executed without such rights.
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
Legal necessity must be proven to invalidate a sale deed executed for minors' benefit, with the burden of proof on defendants to contest authenticity.
The sale deed executed without valid payment consideration is deemed sham, preventing any title transfer, establishing that property ownership remains with original heirs under the valid Will.
The validity and consequences of a sale deed, including the transfer of title and possession, must be raised and challenged within the statutory time limit to be considered valid.
A co-owner can validly sell their share in joint properties, and the sale deed cannot be declared void if it is within the extent of the seller's interest.
Point of law : non-delivery of possession by the plaintiff to the defendant does not by itself or other facts cumulatively pointed out by the plaintiff, would lead to the conclusion that the transact....
Ratification of a void transaction cannot be inferred from mere silence; Power of Attorney must be strictly construed.
A coparcener cannot execute a settlement deed favoring non-coparceners without consent, rendering it void; however, a sale executed by the Kartha for family necessity is valid and binding on minor co....
A settlement deed requires acceptance by the donee to be valid, and unilateral revocation is not permissible if the deed has been acted upon. Additionally, rights conferred by a compromise deed can l....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.